19th Century East India British Trading Company Flintlock ID?

dtaber2 · 31st January 2013, 07:00 PM

Good morning all,

I have recently purchased this pistol but don't know very much about it. I have taken it to three different experts and have been told three different things.

The lock plate is stamped "1806" with what appears to be a British East India Trading Company Lion Logo. The barrel is engraved with a sprial pattern but has no actual identifying markers. The rest of the gun is elaborately decorated with mother of pearl and other materials. The handle butt is flat with a saddle ring on the end. I have been told by several people that military pistols from the early 19th century did not have flat butts. Is this true? I have also been told that this pistol was likely a late 19th century percussion pistol that was "re-built" with other parts. Does anybody have any information or opinions on what this pistol really is?

I've also seen informaiton regarding "Khyber Pass" pistols. Could this be one?

Any assistance is appreciated.

PClemente · 1st February 2013, 01:26 AM

Hi,
Your pistol appears to be a East India Company pattern modeled after the British New Land Pattern calvary pistol that was in widespread production by 1802. The flat butt plate and lanyard ring were unique to the East India Company pattern. Armories in India and other colonial holdings of Great Britain were contracted to manufacture these pistols to satisfy local military demand of either British troops, native troops under British control or mercenaries of the British East India Company. I have included some pictures of similar pistols. The decorations on the stock leads me to believe that the pistol came into possession of a native mercenary or fell into private hands resulting in the embellishments. My guess is the pistol might well be original. Could it have been used by an Indian rebel during the Sepoy Mutiny and subsequent rebellion of 1857? Who knows...but if it could talk it probably would have an interesting story to tell!
Hope this helps!
Best,
P

Berkley · 1st February 2013, 04:09 AM

While better photos would be helpful, I believe based on what is shown that the lock is not an original Birmingham-made East India Company lock, but rather a Khyber Pass copy. The lockplate is made of flat stock, rather than having the gracefully rounded edges of an original. The date is stamped with poorly spaced numerals in a modern sans serif font. The protruding screw heads of the internal lock mechanism are nothing like the smoothly finished originals.

laEspadaAncha · 1st February 2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkley

While better photos would be helpful, I believe based on what is shown that the lock is not an original Birmingham-made East India Company lock, but rather a Khyber Pass copy. The lockplate is made of flat stock, rather than having the gracefully rounded edges of an original. The date is stamped with poorly spaced numerals in a modern sans serif font. The protruding screw heads of the internal lock mechanism are nothing like the smoothly finished originals.

Good catch!

From a British service blunderbuss:

Jim McDougall · 1st February 2013, 06:23 PM

I think PClemente's observations may be quite well placed, and that Berkeley is right in this being most likely a 'Khyber' produced interpretation of these early flintlocks. In these rugged regions of the Northwest Frontier, much as in many remote colonial regions, the flintlock remained in favor as it was far easier to keep them servicable and supplied than trying to find percussion caps and or cartridges.

While these reproduced examples of British firearms have been made in these regions into present times, I am inclined to think this is an earlier product which is quite likely of 19th century as the MOP motif is consistant with similar on some camel guns (jezails) of possible mid to latter 19th century. The rampant lion EIC logo did not begin use until around 1808 and not in degree until the 1820s in my understanding. The date stamp is however consistant with location of those of the period, though as noted the irregular arrangement of the numbers is revealing. In 1806 prevalent makers were Leigh and Barnett, and these used the EIC balemark with flaunched heart, the '4' and VEIC initials.

Very nice example with good potential if close examination supports the period estimate, but visually and 'by the numbers' looks good for an earlier Khyber product. I would base that on closer adherence to the locks present in the region on those earlier times and during transition.

Pukka Bundook · 11th February 2013, 07:54 PM

I agree the lock is not an EIC, as they were made to even higher standards in Birmingham than British ordinance arms.
I don't think the EIC ever had locks made outside the country, but am not sure.
This one looks to me a nice though comparatively new one with a rather bad lock.

Hello Jim!,
Re. the use of flintlocks for longer periods "up North" in the khyber area, as they were easier to keep running than finding percussion caps;

I'm not sure that this was the case, as I have heard that the reason the Matchlock was used so long in that part of the world, was because no suitable spark-producing stones were to be found in the area.
Now, I have never been there,....and cant say which is right!.....but I don't thing both theories can be!
Any more light on this?

All the best,
Richard.

31st January 2013, 07:00 PM	#1
dtaber2 Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2	19th Century East India British Trading Company Flintlock ID? Good morning all, I have recently purchased this pistol but don't know very much about it. I have taken it to three different experts and have been told three different things. The lock plate is stamped "1806" with what appears to be a British East India Trading Company Lion Logo. The barrel is engraved with a sprial pattern but has no actual identifying markers. The rest of the gun is elaborately decorated with mother of pearl and other materials. The handle butt is flat with a saddle ring on the end. I have been told by several people that military pistols from the early 19th century did not have flat butts. Is this true? I have also been told that this pistol was likely a late 19th century percussion pistol that was "re-built" with other parts. Does anybody have any information or opinions on what this pistol really is? I've also seen informaiton regarding "Khyber Pass" pistols. Could this be one? Any assistance is appreciated. Attached Images

1st February 2013, 01:26 AM	#2
PClemente Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 42	Hi, Your pistol appears to be a East India Company pattern modeled after the British New Land Pattern calvary pistol that was in widespread production by 1802. The flat butt plate and lanyard ring were unique to the East India Company pattern. Armories in India and other colonial holdings of Great Britain were contracted to manufacture these pistols to satisfy local military demand of either British troops, native troops under British control or mercenaries of the British East India Company. I have included some pictures of similar pistols. The decorations on the stock leads me to believe that the pistol came into possession of a native mercenary or fell into private hands resulting in the embellishments. My guess is the pistol might well be original. Could it have been used by an Indian rebel during the Sepoy Mutiny and subsequent rebellion of 1857? Who knows...but if it could talk it probably would have an interesting story to tell! Hope this helps! Best, P Attached Images

1st February 2013, 04:09 AM	#3
Berkley Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Austin, Texas USA Posts: 257	While better photos would be helpful, I believe based on what is shown that the lock is not an original Birmingham-made East India Company lock, but rather a Khyber Pass copy. The lockplate is made of flat stock, rather than having the gracefully rounded edges of an original. The date is stamped with poorly spaced numerals in a modern sans serif font. The protruding screw heads of the internal lock mechanism are nothing like the smoothly finished originals. Attached Images

1st February 2013, 06:23 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	I think PClemente's observations may be quite well placed, and that Berkeley is right in this being most likely a 'Khyber' produced interpretation of these early flintlocks. In these rugged regions of the Northwest Frontier, much as in many remote colonial regions, the flintlock remained in favor as it was far easier to keep them servicable and supplied than trying to find percussion caps and or cartridges. While these reproduced examples of British firearms have been made in these regions into present times, I am inclined to think this is an earlier product which is quite likely of 19th century as the MOP motif is consistant with similar on some camel guns (jezails) of possible mid to latter 19th century. The rampant lion EIC logo did not begin use until around 1808 and not in degree until the 1820s in my understanding. The date stamp is however consistant with location of those of the period, though as noted the irregular arrangement of the numbers is revealing. In 1806 prevalent makers were Leigh and Barnett, and these used the EIC balemark with flaunched heart, the '4' and VEIC initials. Very nice example with good potential if close examination supports the period estimate, but visually and 'by the numbers' looks good for an earlier Khyber product. I would base that on closer adherence to the locks present in the region on those earlier times and during transition.

11th February 2013, 07:54 PM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	I agree the lock is not an EIC, as they were made to even higher standards in Birmingham than British ordinance arms. I don't think the EIC ever had locks made outside the country, but am not sure. This one looks to me a nice though comparatively new one with a rather bad lock. Hello Jim!, Re. the use of flintlocks for longer periods "up North" in the khyber area, as they were easier to keep running than finding percussion caps; I'm not sure that this was the case, as I have heard that the reason the Matchlock was used so long in that part of the world, was because no suitable spark-producing stones were to be found in the area. Now, I have never been there,....and cant say which is right!.....but I don't thing both theories can be! Any more light on this? All the best, Richard.